That they expect men to support them. This is a process which starts early on, with women expecting men to pick up the check when dating. It’s reinforced through such customs as women expecting men to hold open doors for them and all the rest. By women quitting their jobs after they get married. And it goes into the final inning with alimony.

Please note that none of this is dictated by the courts or the media, or, for that matter, even the feminazis. It’s the product of women seeing themselves as entitlement princesses.

The men’s movement could do more to liberate us all by flatly declaring that no man will go out with any female who expects him to pick up the check. The marriage strike is one (big) step in this direction.

I hate long discussions on formats such as this because it is so hard to review what was said by both sides, especially when there are so many other commentors. Anyway, here goes:

>PEOPLE should be accountable for their actions, not other’s bad behavior.

And having the government step in and remove parental rights doesn’t get the government out of it, does it?

My argument was for 100% no fault divorce but I suggested that women be held responsible for their choices to counterbalance the situation if men will be held responsible for their actions and choices. Under our current system, divorce is called no fault but in reality, it’s no fault for the woman only. You appear to advocate fault divorce. Who needs a mother as a wife and Uncle Sam as his wife’s primary husband and protector? Polygamy is supposed to be illegal in this country. That restriction also applies only to men. In this country, there is no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have supporting her at the same time, as long as each of her children is by a different guy. Women make their decisions based primarily on feelings rather than logic. The same with judges these days. In my opinion, fault divorce is a deal breaker and one of the primary reasons for a man to never marry in this country because no matter what, women have the advantage over men in court. So many women and men expect men to pay and pay and pay after a divorce and no what a man does during the marriage, it’s interpreted so as to cause the man to pay the woman more. For instance, if a man is generous to his wife during the marriage, the rule is used that says the woman should continue to be maintained at the lifestyle level to which she has become accustomed. If he works hard and long hours to support his family, he doesn’t stand a chance of getting shared or exclusive custody because the mother has been doing most of the child rearing during the marriage. If he does not do these things, the divorce is his fault and she gets alimony because he is a piker and primarily responsible for the marital breakup. If the guy doesn’t pay child support, he goes to jail. If a woman has children she can’t support, she gets welfare. So how could any reasonable person expect men to consistently get a fair deal in any fault divorce system?????????????????? Give me a break!

>There is a difference between not having forced child support, and losing parental rights.

So? I guess the loss of parental rights for women is what bothers you. Yet men lose their parental rights in probably 95%-98% of all divorces. So what do you suggest instead? More rights for men or less for women?

>Never going to happen

Next must come the rebuttable presumption of joint custody. You have to have it, because a non-rebuttable presumption will never pass.

Only if the lawyers have the last word. Or women. Or both.

>What will come closest, first, is allowing fault based marriage to exist side by side with no fault. For people such as you describe, the no fault option will be available – you work out your decree, the court rubber stamps it. If not, the court will decide, and it will decide basedd on fault. Cheat on your spouse? Fault. Spend like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse on shore leave? Fault. Assault your spouse? Fault. And so on, and so forth.

Yawn! This is what we have now, more or less. Except that women always have the advantage in any disagreement in court and in most cases, the man ends up having to pay the woman’s legal bills after she decides to fight. So where is the incentive for the woman to agree to anything? Some do, of course, but not if they have any appetite for free money and assets.

>A move-away parent surrenders their right to joint custody. Period.

OK. I could live with that but ideal would be to prohibit move-aways because the children need both parents. Divorce doesn’t change that.

>the presence of an engaged parent has to be regarded as more important than a check. Refuse to allow access? You are abusing your child.

Agree.

>And to be fair, if you refuse to see them, or take your turn – same deal. Something my daughter’s mother was spitefully guilty of once my baby girl chose to live with me.

Don’t agree. Each parent must be allowed to continue to parent their children but punishing them for not doing what others feel is necessary is bad and usually arbitrary. As always, everything the man doesn’t do will be acted upon, what the woman doesn’t do will be no biggy!

>Choice for men. Or a removal of choice for women. Whatever you pick, it has to be equal. If the latter, no more drop off points, no more putting a child up for adoption without the consent of the father, the father gets first chance if she doesn’t want it, etc. etc. etc. Refuse to name a father? No welfare? Don’t take care of the kid? Not just a loss of rights as a parent, madam, but criminal charges.

Agree 100%.

>Parenthood and marriage are contracts. Those who break the contract should be penalized. Those who don’t – should not. You propose the stick alone. This will not work. You need the carrot, too. And at a certain point it is right and proper for the government to enforce contracts.

Contract? Where? There is no contract, just an arrangement whereby a woman and judge can enforce anything upon a man as long as the result is in the financial “best interest” of the woman, children, and government. A contract requires agreement to its provisions ahead of time by both parties. Under the present system of marriage and parenting, nothing is agreed to by either party ahead of time, unless there is a written premarital agreement, and even that can be voided if it’s not in agreement with what the woman and judge feels is financially “fair” to the woman and children at divorce time.

>I’m not interested in creating a reverse feminist state.

Neither am I. But I am for a patriarchy. I am more for a benevolent dictatorship, run by men. And I believe that both men and women would be better off as a result. Women would get more if they couldn’t steal from men to get what they desire in life
.
Whew! I quit!

PEOPLE should be accountable for their actions, not other’s bad behavior.

This place is full of men who have chosen poorly on women – do you believe then that they got what was coming to them?

If women knew they would be held responsible for choosing a bad boy as so many women do and they can no longer expect the government to step in as her primary protector in life and force her man at gunpoint or by threat of jail to act in a way that’s contrary to his nature, do you really think women would continue to act in the same way as they do now? Do you believe that 40% of all births in this country would continue to be born to single mothers? What percentage of women marry men with the expectation of changing him because he isn’t really what she wanted but is “close enough” for the moment while planning on getting the rest through whining, withholding of sex and government intervention if all else fails.

Okay – the law of consequence I agree with.

If a woman knows that she will lose her parental rights upon admitting she chose to have children by a man who doesn’t want them or want to support them and we did away with forced child support, do you really believe she would still make THAT choice? Or do you suppose she more likely choose a slightly different course of action, like having children with a man who wants them?

There is a difference between not having forced child support, and losing parental rights.

The bottom line is that we need to get the government out of our marital and parental lives and that’s the only way marriage to an American woman would be amenable to me.

And having the government step in and remove parental rights doesn’t get the government out of it, does it?

And the only way we can do that is to immunize mothers and fathers against the fighting that invariably comes with the marital territory. We must take the fighting out of divorce by design. We must require both parents to resolve their problems between themselves and ultimately both be held responsible for their actions and choices in life, including women.

Never going to happen; what you are talking about is a case of letting the best become the enemy of the good.

What will come closest, first, is allowing fault based marriage to exist side by side with no fault. For people such as you describe, the no fault option will be available – you work out your decree, the court rubber stamps it. If not, the court will decide, and it will decide basedd on fault. Cheat on your spouse? Fault. Spend like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse on shore leave? Fault. Assault your spouse? Fault. And so on, and so forth.

If you can’t find a real fault, and you just want out – okay, you can’t keep someone in who does not want to be. In that case, that person is abandoning the marriage – fault.

Next must come the rebuttable presumption of joint custody. You have to have it, because a non-rebuttable presumption will never pass. Anywhere. What you have to have then is the burden of proof squarely on the accuser. You say your spouse was abusive? Get a conviction, first. An ex-parte restraining order on the grounds of “:fear” is insufficient, and inadmissable (except perhaps as evidence that you make unfounded accusations, and might be the unfit parent.)

A move-away parent surrenders their right to joint custody. Period.

The presence of an engaged parent has to be regarded as more important than a check. Refuse to allow access? You are abusing your child. (And to be fair, if you refuse to see them, or take your turn – same deal. Something my daughter’s mother was spitefully guilty of once my baby girl chose to live with me.

Choice for men. Or a removal of choice for women. Whatever you pick, it has to be equal. If the latter, no more drop off points, no more putting a child up for adoption without the consent of the father, the father gets first chance if she doesn’t want it, etc. etc. etc. Refuse to name a father? No welfare? Don’t take care of the kid? Not just a loss of rights as a parent, madam, but criminal charges.

I have plenty of sympathy for men who are the victims of “whoopsie (wink)!” pregnancies. Birth control is a no-brainer. I have no sympathy, though, for a man (or woman)who willingly creates a child, then decides to change their mind or the terms later.

But if they do that, they – AND THEY ALONE – should pay the price for it. Parenthood and marriage are contracts. Those who break the contract should be penalized. Those who don’t – should not. You propose the stick alone. This will not work. You need the carrot, too. And at a certain point it is right and proper for the government to enforce contracts.

There is nothing wrong with the government enforcing contracts. What is wrong now is the selective and half-assed, and biased way in which it enforces some provisions and not others.

And this should apply to men and women alike. I’m not interested in creating a reverse feminist state. I’m all for taking bad and misandrist laws and applying them to women too. The laws are there, now, and you aren’t making new ones. By all means, shove it down their throats sideways, and the cries of their pain will do more than anything to spur their repeal – however sad the case is, it is true that until women suffer, nothing will change. So instead of wishing for a perfect world which will never come to pass, use the imperfections.

Creating laws which are just as bad, in reverse? No – it’s not solving problems. It’s just trading them for new ones.

Because the vast majority of women do not want “true equality”.

Traditional women want to retain the usual perks of being a woman: staying home and taking care of the children; a lifetime of support via husband/alimony/child support; having doors opened for them; immunity from military conscription; etc. If you do not believe this, then read any of the conservative women’s websites.

As for feminists, they want a situation in which women have the privileges — look at their advocacy of VAWA, rewriting of the legal code to favor women over men, their refusal to demand that women be drafted, etc., etc.

The problem is in assuming that women’s political struggle is a struggle for equality. Like most political struggles, it is a struggle for power. Men flounder about trying to claim “sexism”, but women want sexism insofar as it favors them.

I highly recommend reading James Burnham’s classic, “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom.” It was a ground breaking work on how political movements use the rhetoric of equality, freedom, liberation, etc., as a mask for their true goal, which is the seizeure of total power.

Burnham, by the way, was one of George Orwell’s muses.

the next day when you return, you will find that i have tied a yellow ribbon to every tree in the forest.

will you spend your life searching for the pot of gold you KNOW is there, or will you consider the time better spent finding your own pot of gold someplae else?

i tried american women… i got the kind of greif that only the 10 oclock news covers… for 15 years i tried to find a decent one.. and i come from a great family, and such… no luck.

today i am married.. she is beautiful (to me), feminine, full of good morals and values, has old fashioned american ideals, hasnt slept around, has a great family that i feel a part of (to the point of invigthign them on vacations), loves my family, and on and on…

my secret? easy… i stopped looking for gold in a chalk mine… i found that if you want gold, its better to go where there is a lot of gold… that way, you might actually find some. this is why everyone went to california for the gold rush, it made no sense to pan for gold in NJ when there was more in california to be had.

now this doesnt mean that there isnt gold everywhere… of course thats true. but at least in california i only have to dig an average of a few tons to get an ounce.. while in other places i can dig a thousand tons and have less.

the largest diamond mine in arkansas was discovered by a find in a garden… i bet that kid would tell everyone to look in their gardens for a diamond the size of a baseball and was used for a paperweight… but i will also bet that no one will find one in my lifetime either.

before you advise men to go out there and risk their lives to prove your point. why dont you publish a list of 20 or so instructions in how to test and determine that you have real gold and not the more common iron pyrite…

otherwise, your sending 70% to their doom, to prove that in the remaining 30% there is a few happy souls.. better to rule alone in pergatory than be ruled by a fury in hell… for hell hath no fury… and that says a lot!

you once asked me what I meant by “pussified men”. Your example above of a Stuart Smalley-type male is a perfect example. There are others occassionally at MND. Some are women masquerading as males.

Denis, here’s a perfect example of a Stuart Smalley:

“Mjaybee said, [...]
That’s society in America today – ranting about getting screwed over isn’t going to help change it, and will alienate a good portion of those women who might otherwise want to help you out if you do decide to take action to change it.

July 14, 2007″

News flash, Mjaybee, women don’t WANT “true equality”. Most want and crave men to continue protecting and supporting them. Feminism bashes men as oppressors in order to justify victim privileges for women in the form of entitlements and to continue enjoying the traditional support men gave them freely in the past.

Trying to move towards “true equality” when EVERYTHING shows that it’s impossible is insanity. How many times do you have to go out in the rain without an umbrella before realizing that the rain isn’t going to stop just because you want it to?

If women get “shocked” at the things MRA’s are saying then they’re just feminist apologists in drag who want to get men to shut up and stop complaining. And if they have a motivation to do that, it must imply that men discussing things among themselves is a threat. If men stop supporting feminism AND most of the people in power or supporting power are men, well, they get the idea.

You should too. We don’t need feminist apologists to pat us on the head.

Hello Ed. I just had a similar conversation with a Spaniard (living in the states) who has 3 daughters and he was shocked when I told him that spending money on a university education for them was like taking a rental car to the car wash.

I explained that a woman with a high income/education largely did not use their degree (he agreed since his wife was staying at home and looking after the kids) and if they did become successful it was just as likely it would hinder them in finding a mate.

The “Stuart Smalleys” that Denis refers to are all over the place who not only marry shallow-unreliable American women but then work like dogs to put their daughters through university systems that are a TOTAL WASTE and only indoctrinate them to become commie man haters.

He asked what I want to do if I have a daughter. Simple: Send her abroad to an inexpensive university in Eastern Europe or Latin America. Or… to a local community college to learn how to be a dental assistant, veterinarian, or paralegal. Get her married off to a decent man by the age of 25 and start counting grandchildren.

Red stater men have a tremendous amount of power and considering the panic attacks the feminists have had over us marrying foreign women, we haven’t begun to flex our muscles yet. Imagine if most of us sent our lovely women out of the system…

He says: “Ive said before, a man can almost never win an argument with a woman. Even when the issue goes his way, she conceded the action but not the matter. The level of frustration that men experience when daily negotiating the gauntlet of female reasoning leads them to simply aviod the discourse and yield leadership.”

Women back in the 60s and 70’s, led by criminally vicious women like Dworkin and Greer, said, ‘Men hate women’, and hardly any women talked them down from their new-found imaginary victimhood. Men then, as now, as always, tried to find the peaceful way. Manginas doubled in number by the week.

The fact of the matter is that men have always loved and cared for women much more than women have loved and cared for men. Men have always gone the extra mile to keep the peace. And women have been quick to take advantage. Manginas are made, not born.

Women take advantage of men whenever they can. The War of the Sexes has always been a one-sided war with men trying to negotiate a peace with emotional terrorists.

And this is what the modern women have become. Terrorists.

Only the wicked love terrorists. Men have had enough trying.

If you have a deep, intense desire for unnecessary pain and suffering, and we all know that some of you out there like that kind of thing, I highly recommend american women for permanent relationships.

They are a masochist’s dream cum true.

In fact, it appears that a majority of these creatures are themselves hard-core masochists which explains their intense desire to be slapped around and screwed/abandoned by “bad boys”.

Who knows? If you get lucky, after her thug boyfriend impregnates her, maybe she will let you support her, her weight gain, and her kid, until she decides to call the police and say, “He threatened me…..”

The best thing to do is completely write-off american women. If you can afford to travel, you will be doing yourself a favor to go foreign.

Let’s face it, the average american feminazi isn’t worth the time, trouble nor headache.

Nor is it worth the time, trouble and headache trying to sort out which of them are closet man-haters and which are not. Save yourself a lot of time if you are looking for a permanent relationship.

However, if you are just looking for sportsex……..

Answer: because they are hypocrites.

The whole problem started in the first place because men have been apologetic and afraid to offend women which has produced a culture of women acting in a spoiled, self-centered, and randomly destructive manner. It’s not going to be fixed by walking on eggs!!!

Foreign men (and women) commonly joke about the selfishness and even viciousness of American women. I’ve heard about this for DECADES from them. I tried dating American women myself, for decades, and nearly all of them were either/and messed up or selfish or exceptionally unattractive. I thought to myself: Sure, I could settle for an ugly American woman (and I do mean UGLY) and HOPE she wouldn’t act as badly as other women later, but why?

Even the most extremist posters usually lay the reason for the problem at the foot of the legal system and even American men. It’s not the women’s fault 100% of the time but they are, what they are. Men didn’t act this monstrously in our culture when they had power with women. Women act as badly in our culture as the worst men in other cultures treat their women. Hell, that’s why many American women will defend their rotten treatment of the men in their life with a statement like: “Sure, men exist to pay the bills and I get affirmative action privileges but women in Saudi Arabia are forced to wear veils!”

Western men’s primary fault lies in that they’re treated women too good. Time to rectify the situation.

“We’ve changed the rules! From now on, all the fights are fair!” — The Quick and the Dead

dude…the great majority of men also do not fall into any category stereotype created by the feminazis and the bloody misandric lawmakers. 99% of men suffer due to laws meant for 1% of the men for no fault of theirs. Similarly, it is the job of the remaining 80% of the women to suffer(if that is possible) for the actions of the 20% feminazis. And if the 80% do not want to suffer, then they better make the difference for the men the way the vast majority of the men made the difference for the women long back to protect them from the 1%. They better join the MRM the way men supported women’s rights then and make the difference for their own sons and brothers the way men made the difference for their daughters and sisters. If they do not make the difference, they have no right to crib….ultimately, women should also face the consequences of their own actions and inactions and such moderate views will have no impact on making any difference.

Any revolution needs both the extremists and the moderates…people listen to moderates only when the extremists make an impact. And we need women in the movement both as extremists and moderates for the sheer purpose of making it seems like an unselfish endeavour.

I also said “Yes there are good women about. But the bulk start out as good little babies, charming toddlers, rising stars in mommy and daddy’s eyes, and quickly adopt an entitlement attitude that is common to 90% at around puberty.”

So what of the 10% remaining? Maybe it is 12% or 15. I don’t know. But even the divorce stats show it cannot be larger than 20% as 80 % of divorces are initiated by women who said ”Till Death do us Part’.

But there may well be a large number of ‘good women’ about who are getting severely hurt by the prevailing breaks in Trust and Faith.

These women are a hope. Hope has mostly gone the way of Faith and Trust, but it remains the only possibility for good men and the good women. The average women and the good women have remained largely silent in the face of a huge anti-male sentiment in society.

They have to stop being silent.

Some have stopped and make loud noises as we do. Some indeed are heroines. They are mainstays of the MRM. Some hate the way men feel and get further hurt by the way men express their feelings. Some get rejected by the very men and men’s movement that they are trying to help.

This is unfortunate. It is where we men can cut some slack and recognise that all does not have to be lost. Resurrection can occur. Such good women allies can be nurtured and welcomed. They do earn the trust back. That doesn’t mean we have to absolve the gender, the bulk of women. But we do have to acknowledge and support these particular women, if for no other reason than (masculine) fairness.

And Hope.

Society is made of men and women. Not just one or the other. For society to change back to some semblance of sense and sensitivity, women will have to join us in demanding it. Feminism didn’t get where it is today by women’s effort alone. Men were in there screwing things up too. Manginas. I very much doubt Feminism would have been successful at all if men had not helped it.

We NEED the good women. We need to encourage them. As above, I have strong doubt that men will achieve a better society without the help of good women. These women may well have to put up with the ‘daily knife cuts’ that men have got used to.

These women will be sad and mad (angry) but they are not Bad. They will feel that we men are unfair. Just as we feel women are. They will share the pain.

One day Men’s Faith will come back, Trust will have grown again. It will be realistic the next time.